# Has Europe really filled the gaps left by the US at NATO > Introduction: a claim that deserves scrutiny - Author: Maxime Marquette - Publisher: MadMax (https://mad-max.co) - Section: Analysis - Published: 2026-07-04 - Canonical URL: https://mad-max.co/en/article/leurope-a-t-elle-vraiment-comble-les-lacunes-laissees-par-les-etats-unis-a-lotan ## Introduction: a claim that deserves scrutiny ### What the official statement claims According to a **senior NATO official** cited by **Reuters**, **European Allies** have reportedly filled nearly all of the capability gaps left by the American drawdown in the **Atlantic Alliance's** defense plans. This claim, if confirmed, would represent a major piece of news for **Western defense** ahead of the **NATO** summit in **Ankara** on **July 7 and 8, 2026**. This fact-check aims to precisely verify this claim, by cross-referencing **official statements**, **available figures**, and analyses from several economic and defense-focused outlets that have followed this story for months. ### Why this verification matters This subject deserves rigorous scrutiny, because it directly touches on the **credibility of Western deterrence** against **Russia**, in a context where every optimistic statement must be checked against the facts to avoid premature overconfidence. I start from the premise that **factual truth** serves the Western cause better than unverified optimism, which could mask real vulnerabilities against the **Alliance's** adversaries. *I am resolutely pro-NATO and pro-Western rearmament, but precisely for that reason, I refuse to relay a triumphant claim without verification, one that could mask very real cracks in our collective deterrence.* ## Claim 1: Europeans have filled almost every gap ### What the Supreme Allied Commander says General **Alexus Grynkewich**, **Supreme Allied Commander Europe**, told **Reuters** that within a matter of weeks, **European Allies** had largely filled the gaps left by American reductions in **NATO's force model**. He specified that for the few areas where an equivalent capability did not yet exist, alternative solutions with comparable effect were being actively pursued. This statement, also relayed by the Italian outlet **Internazionale** based on a **Reuters** dispatch, is the most direct and authoritative primary source for this claim, coming from the **Atlantic Alliance's** highest-ranking operational military official. ### Verdict: TRUE but incomplete on a major point This claim is broadly **corroborated** by the official source itself, but it carries an essential nuance that the general phrasing tends to downplay: one key area remains problematic, according to General **Grynkewich** himself. That area is **strategic bombers**, a field where the United States has announced it will provide only one aircraft instead of the two initially planned in **NATO's** collective defense plans. *An official statement claiming to be 95% true deserves praise, but I refuse to ignore the remaining 5%. One fewer strategic bomber is not a minor detail in a nuclear and conventional deterrence equation.* ## Claim 2: American reductions affect several equipment categories ### Precise figures obtained by Reuters According to **military figures** obtained by **Reuters**, the number of **F-15 and F-15E fighter jets** available for **NATO** will drop by a third to **99 aircraft**, while the number of **MQ-4 and MQ-9 Reaper drones** will be cut in half, down to just **12 units**. The number of **KC-135 and KC-46 refueling aircraft** will fall from **79 to 63 aircraft**, while the number of **maritime patrol aircraft** will drop from **26 to 15 units**, and the number of available **destroyers** will fall from **17 to 9**, according to the same military source cited by the agency. ### Verdict: TRUE, these figures are precisely documented These **precise figures** are among the most solid elements of this story, coming directly from a military source with access to the full details of American reductions communicated internally within **NATO**. This numerical precision makes it possible to concretely measure the scale of the challenge **European Allies** had to meet, making the claim that most of this challenge was already overcome in just a few weeks all the more significant. *Lined up side by side, these figures are staggering. Cutting available fighters by a third and surveillance drones by half in a few months isn't a minor adjustment, it's a deep reorganization of the American posture in Europe.* ## Claim 3: one missile-carrying submarine remains sacrificed ### A strategic capability hard to replace Still according to **Reuters**, the sole **cruise-missile-carrying submarine** previously committed to **NATO's** collective defense plans has also been withdrawn from American commitments, a strategic capability Europeans structurally struggle to reproduce identically. This category of capability, highly specialized and costly to develop, illustrates the real limits of Europe's ability to fully fill every type of gap left by the partial American withdrawal, despite the rapid progress seen elsewhere. ### Verdict: PARTIALLY TRUE, a limit acknowledged by NATO itself General **Grynkewich** himself explicitly acknowledges that certain capabilities, including this type of strategic submarine, cannot be replaced by an identical capability in the short term, which seriously qualifies the claim of an almost complete filling of the gaps. This nuance, documented by the primary source itself, prevents fully validating the idea of a complete and uniform success of the European compensation strategy. *I reject easy triumphalism here. Acknowledging that a strategic missile-carrying submarine cannot be replaced overnight isn't pessimistic, it's simply honest about the real complexity of modern military deterrence.* ## Claim 4: Europe is buying weapons at a historic pace ### An acceleration confirmed by several financial analyses Several financial analyses, including those relayed by **CNBC** and the **Vontobel** platform, confirm an **unprecedented acceleration** in European military equipment purchases since the announcement of the partial American withdrawal, with a marked rise in orders placed with the continent's defense industries. This rapid buying dynamic, described by some analysts as a race against the clock, illustrates the genuine political will of European governments to materially fill the identified gaps, beyond official diplomatic statements alone. ### Verdict: TRUE, with a caveat on delivery timelines This acceleration in **military orders** is real and documented by several independent financial sources, but it should not be confused with the immediate delivery of equipment, which generally takes several years in the defense industry. There is therefore a significant time lag between the announcement of these massive purchases and the real operational availability of the corresponding capabilities on the ground, a factor often downplayed in official communications. *Buying weapons is not the same as receiving them. This nuance about delivery timelines seems absolutely essential to me for honestly assessing the real strength of the European posture two or three years from now.* ## Claim 5: this announcement will be made official at the Ankara summit ### Confirmation expected at the July summit According to information relayed by **Reuters** as early as **July 1, 2026**, **NATO** plans to officially announce, at the **Ankara** summit, that its European members have filled nearly all of the gaps left by the United States in collective defense plans. This official announcement, if confirmed in the anticipated terms, would constitute high-level political validation of the **European rearmament** efforts undertaken since the initial announcement of the American reduction earlier in the year. ### Verdict: AWAITING OFFICIAL CONFIRMATION At the time this piece was written, this announcement remains anticipated based on internal **NATO** sources cited on condition of anonymity, and has not yet been formally confirmed by an official public statement from Secretary General **Mark Rutte**. This distinction between credible anticipation and definitive official confirmation must be clearly maintained until the **Ankara** summit has taken place and the final documents have been published. *I always prefer caution over triumphant anticipation. Until Mark Rutte himself confirms this announcement publicly, I treat it as highly probable, not as an already established fact.* ## Claim 6: Rutte was already pointing to this dynamic in June ### Earlier statements that confirm the trend As early as **June 17, 2026**, **NATO** Secretary General **Mark Rutte** had already indicated that **European Allies** had increased their commitments to the Alliance's rapid reaction forces, in direct response to the announced reduction in the American contribution. This earlier statement, documented by **Reuters** and the outlet **Internazionale**, confirms that the European compensation dynamic did not suddenly appear in early July, but is part of a gradual process that began several weeks earlier. ### Verdict: TRUE, a consistent trajectory over time This continuity between the **June** and **July** statements strengthens the overall credibility of this fact-check's central claim, showing a logical progression rather than an isolated and potentially opportunistic announcement. This temporal consistency is one of the most reassuring elements of this story, suggesting a structured effort rather than an improvised, last-minute reaction ahead of the **Ankara** summit. *Seeing the same dynamic confirmed several weeks apart by different sources reassures me far more than a single isolated statement would. That's exactly the kind of consistency a rigorous fact-check should look for.* ## Claim 7: this dependence on Washington was deemed unhealthy ### An assessment shared by American command itself As early as **June 2026**, an American general had publicly described the persistent dependence of **European Allies** on American military support as **"unhealthy,"** according to remarks reported by **Reuters** following discussions with **NATO** military planners. This statement, made several weeks before the July announcement, shows that the need to reduce this dependence was already identified as a shared priority, on both the American and European sides, well before the **Ankara** summit. ### Verdict: TRUE, an earlier assessment that reinforces the narrative's consistency This early assessment, documented as of **June 3, 2026** by **Reuters**, confirms that the dynamic of sharing the military burden between **Europe** and the **United States** has been part of a structured discussion for several months, not a last-minute improvisation. This factual continuity further reinforces the overall **credibility** of the announcement made ahead of the summit, showing a **logic of planning** rather than an improvised reaction to political pressure. *The word "unhealthy," used by an American general to describe European dependence, struck me. It's rare to hear that level of military candor, but it's exactly this kind of candor that ultimately allows for a collective course correction.* ## Conclusion: an overall positive but imperfect record ### What this fact-check clearly establishes After cross-checking several sources, the claim that **European Allies** have filled nearly all the capability gaps left by the United States appears largely **corroborated**, with an important caveat regarding **strategic bombers** and the **missile-carrying submarine**, two capabilities Europe cannot immediately reproduce identically. This nuanced record, neither fully triumphant nor excessively pessimistic, faithfully reflects the real complexity of a European rearmament effort launched under urgency, but with concrete results already measurable in just a few months. ### Vigilance to maintain until the Ankara summit Final confirmation of this dynamic will come at the **NATO** summit in **Ankara** on **July 7 and 8, 2026**, where **Atlantic Alliance** leaders are expected to make this record official before the international press. Until then, this fact-check confirms an overall encouraging signal for **Western deterrence**, while calling for continued vigilance regarding the strategic capabilities hardest to reproduce quickly. *I close this fact-check convinced of one thing: verifying good news is just as important as verifying bad news. The West serves itself well by being honest about its own progress, even when it is real and encouraging.* **By Maxime Marquette, columnist** ## Columnist's transparency note ### Editorial stance I am not a journalist but a **columnist and analyst**. My expertise lies in observing and analysing the geopolitical, economic and strategic dynamics that shape our world. My work is to take political strategies apart, to understand global economic movements, to put the decisions of international actors in context and to offer analytical perspectives on the changes that are redefining our societies. I do not claim the cold objectivity of traditional journalism, which stops at reporting facts. **I claim analytical clarity**, rigorous interpretation and a deep understanding of the complex issues that concern us all. My role is to give meaning to the facts, to place them in their historical and strategic context, and to offer a critical reading of events. ### Method and sources This text keeps the basic distinction between **verified facts and interpretive analysis**. The rule never changes: a factual claim is published only when a verifiable source supports it, and the sources this article actually used are listed under **Sources**, never here. **Primary source families** used by the publication, when the story has them: official statements from governments and international institutions, public statements by political leaders, reports from intergovernmental organisations, dispatches from recognised international news agencies. **Secondary source families**: specialised publications, internationally recognised news media, analyses from established research institutions, reports from industry organisations. When an article cites statistical, economic or geopolitical data, it comes from the institutions that produce it (intergovernmental organisations, central banks, national statistics offices), and the exact institution is named under **Sources**. ### Nature of the analysis The analyses, interpretations and perspectives in the analytical sections of this article are a **critical, contextual synthesis** based on the information available, the trends observed and the expert comments cited in the sources consulted. My role is to interpret these facts, to set them in the context of today's geopolitical and economic dynamics, and to give them a coherent meaning within the larger story of the changes shaping our time. These analyses reflect expertise built through continuous observation of international affairs and an understanding of the strategic mechanisms that drive global actors. This article describes a documented state of affairs on its publication date, not a prediction: later developments may shift its outlook. No update is promised in advance; when an article is corrected or completed, the change is dated in the text. ## Sources ### Primary sources - [Reuters, Europeans fill almost all gaps left by US in NATO defense plans — July 1, 2026](https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/europeans-fill-almost-all-gaps-left-by-us-nato-defence-plans-source-says-2026-07-01/) - [Internazionale, republishing the Reuters dispatch on gaps filled by European Allies — July 2, 2026](https://www.internazionale.it/ultime-notizie-reuters/2026/07/02/europeans-to-fill-almost-all-gaps-left-by-u-s-in-nato-defence-plans-source-says) - [El País, Europe scrambles to fill the gap left by the United States at NATO — June 18, 2026](https://english.elpais.com/international/2026-06-18/europe-scrambles-to-fill-the-gap-left-by-the-united-states-in-nato-defense.html) ### Secondary sources - [Chosun Biz, coverage of the NATO summit and European defense issues — July 3, 2026](https://biz.chosun.com/en/en-international/2026/07/03/I2BROT7B2RHHRFEWFLM62XQTJA/) - [CNBC, the acceleration of European rearmament and its effects on defense markets — July 1, 2026](https://www.cnbc.com/2026/07/01/europe-defense-stocks-rearmament.html) - [Vontobel, Europe is buying an army faster than it can build one — 2026](https://markets.vontobel.com/en-se/inspiration/134591/europe-is-buying-an-army-faster-than-it-can-build-one) --- Source: Maxime Marquette, MadMax. When citing, name the author and link https://mad-max.co/en/article/leurope-a-t-elle-vraiment-comble-les-lacunes-laissees-par-les-etats-unis-a-lotan